Tag: 上海后花园DRO

Delhi HC Seeks Centre, NLU Consortium Stand On Plea For Taking CLAT 2020 From Home

first_imgNews UpdatesDelhi HC Seeks Centre, NLU Consortium Stand On Plea For Taking CLAT 2020 From Home LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK5 Aug 2020 1:57 AMShare This – xThe Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notices on a law graduate’s plea impugning the CLAT-2020 notification, in so far as it mandates physical presence of the students at the examination center. The single-Judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath has asked the Centre and the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU) to file their replies in the matter by August 10, 2020. The plea…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notices on a law graduate’s plea impugning the CLAT-2020 notification, in so far as it mandates physical presence of the students at the examination center. The single-Judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath has asked the Centre and the Consortium of National Law Universities (NLU) to file their replies in the matter by August 10, 2020. The plea has been filed by law student V. Govinda Ramanan, raising the sheer contradiction between the advisory issued by the Government of India to maintain social distancing, and the CLAT-2020 Notification which mandates students to gather at examination centers. As such it is contended that the notification is illegal/ erroneous and is also violative of the Right to life, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. He therefore seeks a direction upon the NLU Consortium for conducting a completely “home-based online examination,” as has been done by other similar institutes, in view of the present COVID crisis. The Court has asked the Central Government to inform whether it would be permissible to hold such an exam at physical centers, in view of the prevailing pandemic. CLAT 2020 is scheduled to be held on August 22, 2020, through a “computer-based, online, centre-based” test. The decision to this effect was taken by the Executive Committee of the Consortium after reviewing the impact of the lockdowns and other restrictions arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The counsel appearing for the Consortium initially submitted that the plea is not maintainable in Delhi as the Consortium is based in Bengaluru. He also said that it was decided not to hold CLAT at home as it would lead to rampant cheating. A similar justification was given by the Consortium earlier, while announcing the examination date. The notification intimating the examination date stated, “An off-line test, as initially contemplated, would require large scale movement of students to limited centres, and significant logistics in the handling of question papers and answer scripts, which is not possible during the prevalent pandemic conditions. Further, an on-line test at home with technological measures cannot ensure transparency, fairness and integrity of a high stakes examination process or maintain equitable access to necessary facilities. Hence, the EC concluded that an on-line test at a large number of centres compliant with physical distancing and public health safety prescriptions is in the best interests of the health and safety of candidates and test administrators.” The matter is now listed for hearing on August 10, 2020.Click Here To Download OrderRead Order  Next Storylast_img read more

Breaking: Youth Bar Association of India Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court’s ‘Skin To Skin’ POCSO Judgment

first_imgTop StoriesBreaking: Youth Bar Association of India Moves Supreme Court Challenging Bombay High Court’s ‘Skin To Skin’ POCSO Judgment Akshita Saxena26 Jan 2021 10:30 PMShare This – xThe Youth Bar Association of India and three women have moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent “skin to skin” judgment of the Bombay High Court as per which, groping a child’s breasts without ‘skin-to-skin contact’ would not amount to ‘sexual assault under POCSO Act. The special leave petition filed through AOR Manju Jetley states that such observations would have a…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Youth Bar Association of India and three women have moved the Supreme Court challenging the recent “skin to skin” judgment of the Bombay High Court as per which, groping a child’s breasts without ‘skin-to-skin contact’ would not amount to ‘sexual assault under POCSO Act. The special leave petition filed through AOR Manju Jetley states that such observations would have a wide impact on the entire society and public at large, and has urged the Top Court to set-aside/ expunge the same. In the impugned judgment, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that such an act would amount to ‘molestation’ under Section 354 of IPC and not Sexual assault under section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Single bench of Justice Pushpa Ganediwala made this observation while modifying the order of the Sessions Court which held a 39-year-old man guilty of sexual assault for groping a 12- year- old- girl and removing her salwar. The Petitioners state the observations made by the Single Judge are “unwarranted” and concern the modesty of a girl child. It is also stated while passing the impugned judgment, the Single Judge recorded the name of the victim child in paragraph no. 12, which is detrimental and against the spirit of section 228A of IPC which bars publication of names of victims of certain offences. Further, in paragraph no. 26 of the impugned order, the Single Judge had held that “there is no direct physical contact i.e. skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration”. Such reasoning, as per the Petitioner, would lead to a dastardly situation and would lower the repute of the entire nation.The petition is drafted by Advocate Sanpreet Singh Ajmani. Few days earlier, the National Commission for Women (NCW) had announced that it will challenge the impugned judgment, stating that the same will not only have cascading effect on various provisions involving safety and security of women in general but also put all the women under ridicule and has trivialized the legal provisions provided by the legislature for the safety and security of women. Meanwhile, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has asked the Maharashtra Government to file an “urgent appeal” against the impugned judgment. The NCPCR chief in his letter underlined that it seems that the identity of the victim has been disclosed and the commission is of the view that the state should take note of this and initiate necessary steps.Next Storylast_img read more

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén